Walker v. Kirwan

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from the action of the lower Court, in overruling a motion to quash the proceedings instituted for the restitution of the property in Cambridge, Maryland, which was leased to the appellant by Edward S. Phillips', who afterwards sold it to the appellee. The real question for our consideration is whether the justice of the peace who heard the case had jurisdiction. If he had, then the Circuit Court for Dorchester County likewise had jurisdiction over it on appeal to it, and there is no appeal to this Court.

From the many eases to that effect, we need only cite Benton v. Stokes, 109 Md. 117 , which was also’ a case brought under the provisions of Article 53 of the Code for the restitution of certain demised premises. Or to state it in another way, if the Circuit Court had the right to decide what it did decide, we cannot review its action. Matthews v. Whiteford, 119 Md. 122 . In that case'it was held that in reviewing the judgment of the justice', “the Circuit Court had power to decide upon the sufficiency of the notice to quit, and also of the effect of the clause in the leas© waiving any notice to quit,” and an appeal from the Circuit Court reversing a judgment of a justice of the peace in a proceeding under Article 53 was dismissed.

This case originated before James K. D. Collins, a justice of the peace of Dorchester County. At the instance of the attorney for the appellant, it was removed to J. Watson Thompson, another justice of that county. No question has been raised about the right of removal, and as each side stated that it was done under a local law for that county, it ¹⁴¹ is not necessary for us to inquire into that. The complaint was filed with the justice in the name of the appellee on March 22, 1920.

It alleges! that he is; the owner of the premises, that while it belonged to Edward S. Phillip® it was leased to the appellant by the month, that thei appellee purchased it from Phillips! and wife under contract, on or about the 18th of 'September, 1919, “whereupon the said Edward S. Phillips at once gave the said Joseph H. Walker proper and legal notice in writing to remove from and quit said property. That said term of tenancy has long since expired, and the plaintiff is entitled to possession of said premises.” It is also; alleged that Walker refused and still refuses to remove from and quit said premises, although said term, of tenancy had long since expired, and the petition then prays for a writ of summons to show cause, etc. There is a copy of what is said to be the notice to quit in the record, which was dated September 18, 1919, and there is a memorandum at the bottom of it of service on Walker on the 19th of September, 1919. The notice state® that the tenancy would expire on the 31st day of October, 1919. It is objected that the notice was fatally defective because there is no signature to it, but there is no certification of evidence in the record and nothing whatever to show that the notice served on Walker was not signed by Phillips.

The complaint expressly alleges that he gave proper and legal notice in writing, and merely because the copy of the notice is marked filed in the Circuit C'o-urt on April 27th, 1920, which was the day of trial in that court, and does not appear to have a signature to it, cannot raise any question about it before usi. If the appellant was of the opinion that the signature was necessary, and there was